NO LICENSE - PERFECTED LEGAL ARGUEMENT

[Shoonra]

However you phrase it, let's see you point to a court decision that says that someone can steer a car -- non-commercially if you insist -- onto a public street without a license.

[Codee]

First lets take the right to travel. This incompases alot of things like WALKING, DRIVING/USING/MOVING-IN A CAR, FLYING A PLANE, TAKING A TRAIN. All of these things are part of travelling.

Now if the state wants to only condition part of the right because it finds that a part is dangerous. Lets take flying a plane. The state wants to limmit flying of planes to only capable people/persons. Are they going to call it a "travelling permit." NO they are not. Why? Because they are not licensing your right to travel, they are regulating a part of it. So the state needs to come up with a term for this conditioned "part" of a right. The term they choose is "privilige." It is not a real privilge because the state cannot take it away "at will." It is really a conditioned right.

To condition "THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL" (as it is discussed in supreme court cases) upon a license means you would need a license just to RIDE IN A CAR, TAKE A TRIP IN A TRAIN, WALK TO THE STORE, CRAWL LIKE A BABY FROM ROOM TO ROOM, TAKE A TRIP ON A PLANE. This is not the situation in the states, because they have not conditioned your right to travel, only a little aspect of that right, which they call a privilige, and what I call a conditioned right.
I wish it was different, but most of the "NO LICENSE" arguments SUCK. I think time would be better spent arguing things like:
1) Jurisdiction of courts
2) Jurisdiction to arrest for non-crimes
3) Show clear evidence as to what ellements constitute a crime
4) Show that not having a license can't be made into a crime, but should be a civil violation.
5) Learn default proceedure.
6) Learn how obtain a license from foreign jurisdictions.
7) Learn what is a jurisdiction
8) Ask David Merrill more about being a court of competent jurisdiction which issues Licenses.

There are so many other ways around this issue then consistantly and intentionally ignoring "At will" and "without due process." These terms gut your arguments and are found in almost EVERY cite on this subject. AGAIN if I am wrong it should not be hard for this forum to easily prove it.

Further I will state my opinion that issuing driver's licenses is the clearest example of propper use of police powers of the state. I am not scared of my country getting invaded, nor even my house. I am more so afraid of the cars on the street then any stand alone criminal, terrorist cell, or foreign power. In all likely hood I may die in a car accident.

GOOD LUCK!

[Codee]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Please Shoonra: "Operator", "driving", "motor vehicle", "traffic" are but a few examples of terms of commerce! There are ample cites in the various posts in many of the threads on this site. (I can only guess you're tired of the mental beating you took on the OMB thread, so you're back to spread confusion on the Travel v. Driving subject - zzzzzzzzzzz)

Really!!! "OPERATE" and "DRIVE" are taboo words that changes the argument. WOW, the very cites on this thread say otherwise. The very cite which says there is a right to travel says travelling includes driving and operating and further it states that driving and operating can be done in the usual course of ones life. MEANING that driving does not automatically mean "comerce." When I read this case it seems to me that if I have the right to travel then I also have the right to drive and operate my automobiles. So why do we keep picking apart these words that are legaly not really different?

My emphasis is collored

Originally Posted by COWBOYTROLL

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

[Shoonra]

Neither case mentioned held that a drivers license was unnecessary.

Thompson v. Smith (1930) 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604, held that a town's police chief could not revoke someone's DL at whim without due process. But it did not say that someone could operate a car (or whatever terminology someone wants) without a DL; quite the contrary, it accepted the contrary - that a person could not drive if his DL was revoked.

Teche Lines Inc. v. Danforth (1943) 195 Miss. 226, 12 So.2d 784, did not even deal with a DL. A bus had stopped to let off a passenger where this left less than 20 feet of clear road width. The plaintiff's decedent rear-ended the bus and was killed. The plaintiff argued that defendant bus line should automatically lose the lawsuit because state law required buses to leave 20 feet clearance. The Mississippi Supreme Court said that it was common knowledge that a lot of roads in the state were too narrow for any bus to comply with the law, but the law does not require impossibilities.

The bus passenger had a right to get off at the bus stop -- and at this point the court recited this quotation from Thompson v. Smith about the right to travel, and said that this right not only includes starting a journey, and continuing the journey, but also, significantly, to end the journey when the destination is reached. So requiring the bus to keep moving until the road was sufficiently wide (probably a considerable distance) impaired the passenger's rights. Therefore the court remanded the case with instructions that the trial court consider what would be suitable and safe bus operation if the road was simply too narrow to enable compliance with the law about 20 feet clearance. Since the right to travel was mentioned only with reference to the bus passenger, it clearly did not, in this case, did not involve the requirement (or non-requirement) of a DL.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

However you phrase it, let's see you point to a court decision that says that someone can steer a car -- non-commercially if you insist -- onto a public street without a license.

Just because a copy of a court decision has not been posted does not mean it has not happened Shoonra. I know plenty of people that do not have licenses or registrations for their autos and DO NOT have any problems. The cops even know who they are.

Tell me something Shoonra, does the lack of a court decision mean something? It means nothing to me or to the ones that travel behind the wheels of their autos without gubment licenses. If one is not bothered who cares what the courts do with their little slaves. Gi'me a freaking break!!

People quit feeding the trolls. Who cares what kind of crap Shoonra comes up with. Does it matter?

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

However you phrase it, let's see you point to a court decision that says that someone can steer a car -- non-commercially if you insist -- onto a public street without a license.

Can you provide a court decision that says you can't "steer a car", not made by/under Color of Law, in a colorable jurisdiction?


Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Page 266, ISBN 0-314-76271-X:

color of law:The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Codee]

Here is the shortest argument I can think of.

First Here we have a definition of The driver's license. Not a definition of "Persons required to have a license."

310. "Driver's license" includes both an operator's and a chauffeur's license.Stats. 1959, ch. 3, p. 1531.

COURT DECISION

The words "or other places" do not authorize such expansion because of the rule of ejusdem generis which has been defined as follows:
"... where, in a statute, general words follow a designation of particular subjects or classes of persons, the meaning of the general words will ordinarily be presumed to be, and construed as restricted by the particular designation and as including only things or persons of the same kind, class, character or nature as those specifically enumerated. The general words are deemed to have been used not to the wide extent which they might bear if standing alone, but as related to words of more definite and particular meaning with which they are associated." (50 Am.Jur., (1944) Statutes, sec. 249, pp. 244, 246.)
Market Basket v. Jacobsen (1955), 134 Cal.App.2d 73, 82.


I keep reading these two together and all I can come with is I do not need a license. I like this argument. Can someone please shoot holes in it so I know where the weak points are. Of course I will keep researchiing too. Thank you all on the SuiJuris Forums.

Cody James

[rentiap]

codee;
You may or may not have already read this article here

It goes into depth of the changes in definitions and codes through the years.

[sabredrivr]

Originally Posted by Codee

First lets take the right to travel. This incompases alot of things like WALKING, DRIVING/USING/MOVING-IN A CAR, FLYING A PLANE, TAKING A TRAIN. All of these things are part of travelling.

Now if the state wants to only condition part of the right because it finds that a part is dangerous. Lets take flying a plane. The state wants to limmit flying of planes to only capable people/persons. Are they going to call it a "travelling permit." NO they are not. Why? Because they are not licensing your right to travel, they are regulating a part of it. So the state needs to come up with a term for this conditioned "part" of a right. The term they choose is "privilige." It is not a real privilge because the state cannot take it away "at will." It is really a conditioned right.

i can see you saying that to a p.e.o."the state cannot take my privilage away at will" as he/she/it takes you into custody.

Originally Posted by Codee

To condition "THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL" (as it is discussed in supreme court cases) upon a license means you would need a license just to RIDE IN A CAR, TAKE A TRIP IN A TRAIN, WALK TO THE STORE, CRAWL LIKE A BABY FROM ROOM TO ROOM, TAKE A TRIP ON A PLANE. This is not the situation in the states, because they have not conditioned your right to travel, only a little aspect of that right, which they call a privilige, and what I call a conditioned right.
I wish it was different, but most of the "NO LICENSE" arguments SUCK. I think time would be better spent arguing things like:
1) Jurisdiction of courts
2) Jurisdiction to arrest for non-crimes
3) Show clear evidence as to what ellements constitute a crime
4) Show that not having a license can't be made into a crime, but should be a civil violation.
5) Learn default proceedure.
6) Learn how obtain a license from foreign jurisdictions.
7) Learn what is a jurisdiction
8) Ask David Merrill more about being a court of competent jurisdiction which issues Licenses.

There are so many other ways around this issue then consistantly and intentionally ignoring "At will" and "without due process." These terms gut your arguments and are found in almost EVERY cite on this subject. AGAIN if I am wrong it should not be hard for this forum to easily prove it.

Further I will state my opinion that issuing driver's licenses is the clearest example of propper use of police powers of the state. I am not scared of my country getting invaded, nor even my house. I am more so afraid of the cars on the street then any stand alone criminal, terrorist cell, or foreign power. In all likely hood I may die in a car accident.

GOOD LUCK!

so, because you are frghtened you run to "mama" government to protect you?
i assume this irrationale fear stems from the government sponsored statistical propaganda
that falsely claims that speed kills?or some similar fear generating propaganda?
why then, are you not more fearful of dieing under the care of a doctor?
they kill lots more people per year than speed or car accidents according to statistics.
from your postings it would be logical to assume you desire not freedom but safety.

i believe the fear you speak of is exaktly what the powers that be want us all to feel.
fear is a great tool for controling someone.

as posted previously, this all boils down to responsibility.
without us being responsible there can be no freedom.
you are unwilling to be responsible for your own safety thus, you surrender your liberty for the safety the government promises yet fails to deliver.
if licensing is such a great use of the states "police power" tell us why so many deaths still occur upon the highways & biways that you fear will be your own undoing?
surely enough time has passed with these perverted licensing practices in place that any sane, rational being could logically conclude it is a dismal failure.
especially considering it's stated purpose of "public safety"
dead men tell no tales or they would be the first to tell you "it doesn't work!".

had the licensing scheme been a success we would have alot larger population.
with this in mind you continue to support the illogical conclusion that travelling is a privilage.
hmm.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by rentiap

codee;
You may or may not have already read this article here

It goes into depth of the changes in definitions and codes through the years.

yes the man who wrote that article is Thomas Thornhill. He lives in Nevada City California. He and I have studied alot together, and I concider him a close personal friend. I also believe that he has written some of the best cited articles ever and leaves nothing up to personal conclusion (Just reasonable infrences.) I cannot thank Thomas enough for teaching me how weak conjecture is and how important a cite is. I have posted alot of Thomas's research on the sui juris project thread or Registration thread. I am pretty sure that the key these artguments are missing that Thomas's are not is the link of legislative history and original intent. I have not seen the original intent issue brought up on these forums.

What is brought up is only some later codes with nothing to bring the force of the original enactment up.

This is why I keep saying I agree witht he premiss, it just that the cites I see will not work by themselves.